The latest Treasury report shows a problem that states can’t ignore. Many have deployed less than 50% of their total SSBCI allocation. Technical Assistance grants exist to provide crucial legal, accounting, and financial advisory support. States need to build systems that deploy these funds quickly, measure their impact, and get dollars to the socially and economically disadvantaged entrepreneurs who need them most.
Last week’s Ecosystem Talks featured Sherrod Davis, who spoke with Dana Nielsen from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation and Tarsha Hearns from Economic Growth Strategies about what works when deploying SSBCI funds. Nielsen manages diverse business development in Wisconsin, where the state has moved funds efficiently by working with existing partners. Hearns built a capital access collaborative in Texas after the state chose not to apply for federal TA funding.
The conversation moved past theory to examine specific systems states and providers need to turn allocated funds into actual support for small businesses.
What Gave Wisconsin an Advantage in Deploying SSBCI Funds?
Nielsen explained that Wisconsin selected two partners from the university system to provide technical assistance for SSBCI. The Office of Business and Entrepreneurship handles accounting and financial services. The Law and Entrepreneurship office provides legal services.
Wisconsin’s advantage came from existing relationships. “I personally have worked with our Office of Business and Entrepreneurship on past small business projects,” Nielsen said. “I knew the person overseeing it quite well.”
Wisconsin has partnered with its university system on multiple initiatives, including cooperative grants, ARPA-funded programs, and small business events. The state’s Small Business Development Centers also run through the university system.
“We are really lucky that our small business development centers are strong in Wisconsin,” Nielsen said. “Having this program and the funds from it allowed us to boost efforts they were already doing.”
Wisconsin had providers selected before submitting the application. This meant they could specify exactly who would deliver services and what those services would be, rather than figuring it out after receiving funding.
“It was nice to have that groundwork already laid when we got started,” Nielsen said.
How Does Wisconsin Use Technology to Track Technical Assistance?
Nielsen described a system that serves dual purposes. It triages businesses to the right services while collecting reporting data that Wisconsin needs to share with Treasury.
The Office of Business and Entrepreneurship created an intake form that businesses use to apply for both financial and legal technical assistance. Having one entry point simplifies the process.
“That form has been extremely helpful, where it acts both as a triage to see what type of assistance they need, and then also it’s collecting a lot of that reporting data,” Nielsen said.
The form verifies whether businesses meet SEDI or VSB status requirements on the front end. This prevents compliance issues later.
The Law and Entrepreneurship clinic is developing an on-demand tool focused on helping businesses decide the best formation type for their circumstances. Businesses can access this resource on their own time without working directly with lawyers or consultants.
“We’ll be able to reach a lot more businesses that way,” Nielsen said.
How Did Texas Build Technical Assistance Without Federal Funding?
Texas presents a different case study. The state didn’t apply for SSBCI TA funding, which created a gap. Ten CDFIs received approval for Texas SSBCI funding, but those CDFIs lacked coordinated technical assistance to help businesses prepare for capital.
Hearns formed a task force to address this. “We immediately, when we learned about SSBCI and some of the CDFIs were applying for it, formed this task force,” Hearns said.
The task force included community stakeholders, CDFIs, entrepreneurial support organizations, and any organization already participating in the ecosystem. They came together to solve one problem: how to get more capital into underserved communities, particularly in Southern Dallas.
“We formed the Dallas Collaborative for Capital Access really as a wraparound ecosystem to support the entrepreneur, but also to provide capacity and TA support to those CDFIs,” Hearns said.
The collaborative functions as the TA arm for CDFIs approved for Texas SSBCI. Without state funding, the group had to create infrastructure that would allow partners to coordinate support.
What Infrastructure Do Providers Need to Deploy Funds Effectively?
Hearns identified two critical needs: funding and infrastructure.
“Money is always one of the things, right? We need the money so we could do the job,” Hearns said. “But don’t make that the only thing you fund. Fund the infrastructure needed to help manage the programs.”
She pointed to a pattern she’s seen across federal programs. States fund programs but don’t fund the systems needed to manage those programs effectively.
The Dallas Collaborative created a single intake form that entrepreneurs could use to provide information once. The system assesses needs and creates smooth handoffs to CDFIs approved for SSBCI.
“When you’re bringing together various organizations trying to work together to support a cause or initiative or to deploy capital, you do have to have the right type of infrastructure,” Hearns said.
That infrastructure includes one place where entrepreneurs access resources, one place where they submit information, and one place where providers can aggregate data from partners for reporting to funders.
What Are the Biggest Bottlenecks in SSBCI Deployment?
Hearns described bottlenecks on both sides of the equation. Finding businesses and getting them capital-ready both create friction. For socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, the challenges compound.
“Trying to get that audience ready for capital, that’s a part of the problem because a lot of them aren’t capital-ready or loan-ready,” Hearns said. “That’s the whole point of TA.”
The process can become circular when businesses apply before they’re ready. Providers spend time preparing them, and that preparation becomes a bottleneck that slows deployment.
The second bottleneck involves alignment between CDFI credit requirements and state program requirements. One CDFI told Hearns they weren’t sure they would participate because borrowers had to navigate two separate systems. Businesses had to complete the CDFI’s application process and also satisfy the state’s separate process.
“When you have two systems, two ways of operating, that is definitely gonna cause a bottleneck,” Hearns said.
How Does Wisconsin Track Whether TA Recipients Actually Get Capital?
Nielsen benefits from working on both sides of Wisconsin’s SSBCI program. She handles technical assistance while colleagues manage the capital side.
“We meet regularly, usually weekly with our full WEDC team, so we can connect and I can hear where they’re at on things, they can hear where I’m at on things,” Nielsen said.
The weekly meetings create visibility across both program components. Nielsen also meets regularly with TA providers, currently on a monthly schedule.
Treasury reporting provides another tracking mechanism. While reporting can be lengthy and complex, it generates business data that Wisconsin can use.
“We’re getting all of that data from the businesses, kind of what their focus is, their contact information,” Nielsen said. “Now we have them in our system. We’re able to reach out in the future if we have other opportunities come up.”
This matters especially as SSBCI eventually winds down. Having business information lets Wisconsin connect entrepreneurs to new opportunities as they emerge.
What Training Helps Partners Navigate Reporting Requirements?
Hearns brought perspective from managing the SBA Community Navigator program, which came with significant reporting requirements.
“If you’ve ever worked with a federal agency, there’s always gonna be that administrative burden,” Hearns said.
She trained stakeholders before the program launched. Partners received advance warning that reporting would be rigorous. Organizations with IT capacity could integrate their systems with government systems to reduce manual data entry.
Not all partners had technology systems. Some still tracked information using Google Forms or Excel spreadsheets.
“One of the things that helped a little bit is that the partners that were all involved, we had a training before everything kicked off,” Hearns said.
The training clarified reporting requirements upfront. As the program evolved and requirements changed, Hearns held frequent training sessions to keep partners updated.
The team built in dedicated staff for data management and reporting. This person’s entire role focused on handling reporting compliance.
“We did write into that grant that we were gonna have someone who was specific to managing data and reporting,” Hearns said.
Nielsen described similar preparation for Wisconsin’s ARPA-funded programs. The Department of Administration brought in a consultant to provide webinar training on federal funding compliance.
The consultant reviewed grantee information to verify that internal controls were properly established. For many community organizations receiving federal dollars for the first time, this support proved essential.
“Having that service available from start to end was super beneficial for that program,” Nielsen said.
What Can States Do If They’re at 20% Deployment?
Hearns spoke directly to states struggling with low deployment rates. Texas sits at approximately 6% deployment.
“I’m pretty sure they’ve been panicking for a good little while,” Hearns said.
Her first recommendation was to invest in infrastructure that makes deployment easier for approved lenders.
Put systems in place that allow partners to integrate with state systems. Make it simpler for lenders to manage deployment and reporting.
“If that’s a lesson learned for Texas, it would be invest in the actual infrastructure, make it easier for your approved lenders to deploy and report back to you,” Hearns said.
Nielsen suggested starting with evaluation. Pause and understand the specific reason funds aren’t moving.
Is the issue on the capital side where partners deploying funds aren’t getting dollars out? Are businesses unaware that the programs exist? Do businesses know about programs but think they’re not the right fit?
“What is that specific problem?” Nielsen said. “And seeing what you have in your toolbox to alleviate it.”
Her second recommendation was to reach out to other states.
“We’re all in the same boat,” Nielsen said. “I reached out to a state when I first came on, and it was incredibly useful.”
Learning from other states’ experience eliminates trial and error. Nielsen also recommended leveraging local partners, such as chambers of commerce and economic development organizations, to raise awareness.
Getting providers directly in front of communities makes a difference. Information on websites doesn’t always connect with people the way in-person presentations can.
“Being out there in the community can also be really helpful,” Nielsen said.
Why Does Awareness Matter for SSBCI Deployment?
Hearns explained that awareness represents a fundamental challenge, particularly when trying to reach specific target markets.
When Texas announced its programs and opened CDFI applications, Hearns participated in planning calls. The collaborative even pitched an affinity partnership to serve as the marketing arm for the region.
“If you’re targeting a certain market for funding, you have to have that kind of trust. You gotta know how to create the awareness,” Hearns said.
CDFIs market their own loan programs, not state initiatives. This creates a gap in awareness about SSBCI funding specifically.
Without relationships with ecosystem builders who can promote programs, states struggle to reach target populations. The lack of TA dollars to fund this type of outreach and coordination compounds the problem.
“Because there’s no connective tissue here in this state, you don’t have those relationships with those ecosystem builders that could help promote the program,” Hearns said.
What’s One Learning You Wish You Knew When SSBCI Started?
Nielsen acknowledged she’s still learning. Seven months into her role, she expects to continue learning throughout the program because it constantly evolves.
One early learning involved misalignment between technical assistance and capital programs. Wisconsin’s capital side focused on programs for high-growth venture capital. Businesses accessing technical assistance weren’t always ready for that next step.
“One of the benefits with SSBCI is your businesses accessing TA don’t have to go right into your SSBCI capital,” Nielsen said.
Wisconsin can refer businesses to other funding sources if they’re not ready for SSBCI capital programs. The team continues working on creating pathways to help businesses reach the point where SSBCI capital makes sense.
Hearns reflected on lessons from watching Texas’s challenges while managing other federal programs.
“Just create your own solution in advance instead of waiting for the government or state or another entity to create a solution for a problem that you’re trying to solve,” Hearns said.
Rather than waiting for state infrastructure, ecosystem builders in Texas created their own systems. They launched their own guarantee program with less administrative burden than federal programs typically require.
What Does Effective Digital Infrastructure Look Like?
Both speakers emphasized that combining intake, deployment, and reporting in one place reduces friction.
When entrepreneurs can submit information once, and providers can track progress in a single system, administrative burdens decrease. Data aggregation for compliance reporting becomes simpler.
Hearns described how this worked for SBA Community Navigator. With one dashboard where partners and entrepreneurs input information, the program could track requests and approvals.
Entrepreneurs requested approximately $48 million in funding but received approval for only $5 million. Having this data in one place made it possible to demonstrate need and secure follow-on funding when the SBA program ended.
“We wouldn’t have had that information if we didn’t have this one dashboard or place where our partners were inputting, and the entrepreneurs were inputting,” Hearns said.
Nielsen described a similar benefit from Wisconsin’s intake form. Data collection happens at the front end, making reporting simpler later. The system also gives Wisconsin contact information for future outreach as new opportunities emerge.
What Does Successful Coordination Between TA and Capital Look Like?
The conversation highlighted a pattern that extends beyond SSBCI. Technical assistance and lending need to work together, especially when serving disadvantaged entrepreneurs.
Some borrowers will need preparation before they’re ready for capital. Having clear workflows that identify these businesses and connect them to appropriate support prevents bottlenecks.
“There’s gonna be a certain percentage of those borrowers who aren’t ready, and having some type of workflow, when they come into the funnel, if they’re not ready, then who are we gonna refer them to?” Hearns said.
Even when businesses aren’t ready for SSBCI funding, other funding options may exist. Coordination requires knowing where to make those referrals.
Wisconsin’s regular meetings between TA and capital teams create this coordination. The state can identify businesses receiving technical assistance and track whether they eventually access capital programs.
Nielsen also pointed to the value of having TA providers attend community events and speak directly with potential clients. This reduces the distance between program information and the businesses that need it.
How Should States Think About Digital Infrastructure Investment?
Davis summarized a key theme from the conversation.
“Connective tissue helps to make sense of the complexity,” Davis said. “It also positions the ecosystem to be ready when these opportunities come up, when these opportunities evolve.”
Having relationships and systems in place before funding arrives accelerates deployment. Wisconsin benefited from existing university partnerships, while Texas created new infrastructure when state support wasn’t available. Both approaches required investment in coordination before deployment could succeed.
Hearns emphasized that infrastructure investment matters for temporary programs like SSBCI because the infrastructure can outlast the specific funding.
When programs end, the relationships, systems, and data remain. Communities can use what they built for the next opportunity.
Nielsen agreed that preparation matters more than having everything perfect. “Don’t wait until everything feels perfect,” Nielsen said. States should do their research, but once the right solution appears, prioritize getting started.
About the Speakers
Dana Nielsen is Project Manager at the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, where she works on both the Diverse Business Development team and Downtown Development team. She focuses on projects that support Wisconsin small businesses. Nielsen graduated from the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in 2020 with a major in public administration and women’s, gender, and sexuality studies. She received her Master of Public Affairs in 2022 from the La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She started at WEDC as an intern in the Office of Rural Prosperity before moving into her current project manager role.
Tarsha Hearns is Founder of Economic Growth Strategies and brings extensive experience in marketing, program strategy, and entrepreneurship. She is a recognized champion for inclusive entrepreneurship who has led transformative initiatives including launching an SBA Women’s Business Center, directing the SBA’s Community Navigator Dallas Program, launching the Dallas Collaborative for Capital Access, and providing vital resources to thousands of entrepreneurs in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Her work focuses on building ecosystems that connect underserved entrepreneurs to capital and support.
Frequently Asked Questions
- How do states overcome deployment hurdles for SSBCI technical assistance funds?
-
States overcome SSBCI TA deployment hurdles by investing in digital infrastructure that streamlines intake, tracks engagement, and simplifies reporting. Wisconsin succeeded by partnering with existing university system providers who already had relationships and capacity. States should also leverage local partners like chambers of commerce and economic development organizations to increase awareness, get providers directly in front of communities, and create clear referral pathways for businesses that need preparation before accessing capital.
- What infrastructure helps states track TA engagement and capital deployment?
-
Effective infrastructure includes a single intake form where businesses apply for services and provide information once, a system that triages businesses to appropriate providers while collecting compliance data, regular communication loops between TA and capital teams, and centralized data management that allows multiple partners to input information and generate aggregate reports. Wisconsin uses an intake form that verifies SEDI/VSB status on the front end and collects reporting data automatically. Texas built a single dashboard where partners and entrepreneurs input information, enabling the collaborative to track requests, approvals, and demonstrate impact to funders.
- How can ecosystems provide technical assistance when states don’t apply for federal funds?
-
Ecosystems can create their own solutions by forming task forces or collaboratives that bring together CDFIs, entrepreneurial support organizations, and community stakeholders. Texas formed the Dallas Collaborative for Capital Access to provide wraparound TA support to CDFIs approved for SSBCI when the state didn’t apply for federal TA funding. The collaborative created shared infrastructure, including intake forms, coordination systems, and data tracking. This approach requires ecosystem builders to invest their own resources in coordination and infrastructure rather than waiting for state support.
- What are the biggest bottlenecks in deploying SSBCI funds to small businesses?
-
The biggest bottlenecks are getting businesses capital-ready and managing dual systems. Many socially and economically disadvantaged entrepreneurs aren’t loan-ready when they apply, requiring significant time investment in preparation. When CDFIs have their own application process, and the state requires a separate process, businesses must navigate two systems, which slows deployment. Additional bottlenecks include lack of awareness about programs, misalignment between TA offerings and capital requirements, and administrative burden from reporting requirements that pull resources away from actual service delivery.
- Why does pairing technical assistance with lending matter for SSBCI?
-
Pairing TA with lending matters because small businesses, especially socially and economically disadvantaged entrepreneurs, often lack the financial systems, legal structures, or documentation needed to qualify for capital. Without preparation, businesses apply but get rejected, wasting both their time and provider resources. TA helps businesses understand formation types, improve accounting practices, get legal structures in place, and develop financial projections lenders need. When TA connects directly to capital programs through coordinated workflows and shared data, businesses move through the system more efficiently, and deployment rates improve.
